22 October 2008 1:24 PM

Get out of Afghanistan

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

David Davis publishes a deeply pessimistic account of the corruption and failure of the Afghan government we prop up, and report after report, from journalists with the troops, from intelligence agencies, underscores the military truth, that this is a war in which there can be no victory, and in which brave soldiers are dying at a frightening rate. A British aid worker is murdered by Islamist fanatics in Kabul.

Yet still politicians, including Mr Davis, and leading soldiers, who should stay out of politics, continue to write and speak as if the thing can be rescued and our bloody, costly, futile intervention in Afghanistan can have any happy ending except a withdrawal. It cannot be. There are no circumstances which can be envisaged in which we could claim to have won this conflict.

In Britain's case we still don't really know what we are supposed to be doing there. I have pointed out many times that, as we grow opium poppies commercially in Oxfordshire, we are badly placed to lecture the Afghans about doing more or less the same thing. Also, we really shouldn't blame Afghan peasants and gangsters for supplying the opium, when we do nothing to prosecute or punish those in this country who buy the end-product. We treat these criminals as victims. If we don't disapprove of Heroin enough to lock up those who break the law by using it, why should they disapprove of it enough to sacrifice their livelihoods?

Yet many British people still believe that the poppy fields are the reason for our troops being there. Given the absence of any other coherent justification, I suppose that isn't surprising. But it's rubbish, even so.

The war's original purpose, supposedly to chase the culprits of 11th September to their base, was almost certainly false or mistaken - and in any case the terrorist headquarters have long ago moved to the safety of Pakistan's badlands.

Warmongering neo-conservatives, plus the supposedly peaceable Barack Obama, have now begun to speak about extending the war into Pakistan, a step so terrifying in its implications that it is hard to believe one's ears. Do these people have any conception of what they are proposing? Do they know anything at all about Pakistan? About as much as they knew about Iraq in the days when it was going to be a 'cakewalk' , I suspect. I am reminded painfully of the days when the Vietnam war was going to be won by extending the fighting into Cambodia. Ah, yes, that turned out well, didn't it?

So let me say as clearly as I can that the only honest and practical thing to do is to leave, and leave soon. This vain and silly war was wrong from the start. It is now unwinnable even on its own confused terms. Only now, after years of needless casualties, are we beginning to provide equipment that might make our soldiers safer. Even then, they are by no means safe enough. Who dares send another mother's son to die in a war that is already lost? Enthusiasts for this battle are welcome to sign up for an international brigade, if they are so sure it is worth doing.

TrackBack

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Contrary to the opinions of all trained and qualified people the little known Bob Ainsworth (Who masquerades as this month's Secretary of Defence) has today claimed that better equipment 'cannot end war risk'. He implies that our armed forces have the required support from our pathetic excuse for a government. Well this could very easily be put to the test !
In private industry our leaders,of which I am one,are accountable ,personally ,to very stringent Health and Safety laws including the recently introduced extension of Corporate Manslaughter regulations. As MP's seem to consider themselves important people it surely is not unreasonable that they should be subject to the same personal accountability.
If this were the case, I feel sure that the debate over whether we should pull out of Afghanistan would be over very quickly as every available plane was sent over there to get our poor soldiers home.

Hitchens has correctly pointed out the problem: white people think they go to other countries and recreate these countries in the image of Western countries. This is non-sense. Tribal societies like Afghanistan will never change and this war is endless (unlike WW2 where you had an actual enemy army that was willing to sign peace treaty and actually give up all their ammunition and arms and bombs).

I agree. But I would first clarify my position by saying this: The missile attacks on Pakistan are different from an invasion in that they are aimed at the same enemy that Pakistan has openly been fighting, that is Al-Qaeda/Taliban. Pakistan has publicly declared itself to be an ally of the US in this fight. So, it is not like the US is striking some random villages in Pakistan, and even as stupid as this current administration is, I can't see any reason why they would want to attack some random village.
These strikes are still wrong because they violate Pakistan's sovereignty. Pakistan has the right to control it's own country. But this is actually part of the problem. They don't have control over parts of their country. I understand the historical background for this. These tribes along the Afghan border are so fiercely independent that they could not easily be subdued by anyone. The British could never subdue them, so they just said ok, just keep any invaders out from the west and we will leave you alone. When Pakistan gained its independence, they continued this policy.
Somehow they have to work this out better, because not having control over parts of your own country is bound to create problems.
On a positive note, though, 11 different tribes in these regions have joined the Pakistani military in their fight against Al-Qaeda. The Pakistani government has armed them and created militias. Some people are likening this to the "Sunni Awakening" in Iraq, in which the Sunni tribal leaders turned against Al-Qaeda there.

Another thing about stupid American foreign policy; luckily it is sometimes prevented from getting stupider because not everyone there is stupid and because our current military is overstretched. This administration really did want to attack Iran, but (and I quote from Aug. 18 of "US News and World Report"), In light of the Iraq experience "generals are more willing to push back against things they think are stupid and Gates (secretary of defense) is more willing to listen" (Andrew Bacevich, professor of International Relations at Boston University)

About attacking Iran, Joint chief of staffs Admiral Mike Mullen said "I already have two wars, and I don't need a third one" He said "There is a real danger of any strike not only causing more instability in the region than there already is, but of actually having the opposite effect" Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also said that an attack would be "disastrous on a number of levels"

Thank you Michael for your reply.
I would just like to say, also, that I doubt very much that the US would actually invade Pakistan, at least not in the true sense of the word. The missile strikes that they have been making into Pakistani soil, are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, and they are wrong, but they are not the same thing as the ground invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan. They have been making missile strikes from drone aircraft for the past 6 years. Only recently, in the past few months, have they openly declared that they would strike into Pakistan (like from helicopters) But then, the top Pakistani General said that if they did that, and it was clearly on Pakistani soil, the Pakistani military should open fire. But he also said that if it was very close to the border they would not. There was a story that the Pakistani military did in fact fire on the US, but the Pakistanis quickly denied it. Why did they deny it ? Maybe they are being pressured to deny it or maybe in some ways they don't mind it. I would imagine that the biggest problems for them come when there is collateral damage.
An article I read recently quoted someone (I think it was a Pakistani journalist) as saying that these strikes would probably continue as long as they did not get out of control.
I'm not saying this is the right policy, but I'm not too worried about an actual invasion. It would just be too stupid.

RH Morgan,

I think if you just think about it a little bit you will see that there is a difference between the terrorists that attacked London on 7/7 and the ones that attacked the US on 9/11. The ones that attacked London are enemies of your country. In a way they are traitors, since they attacked their own people. But the local governments of Bradford and Leicester (I assume that is where they were from ?) were not aiding and abetting them, nor were the residents of those cities, so obviously there should be no reason to hold those cities accountable. Terrorists (or traitors) from within can be caught, tried and convicted within your own system of justice. (or at least they should be)
Al-Qaeda's attack on the US originated from its base in Afghanistan, and the government of Afghanistan was directly supporting Al-Qaeda there. If this is not true, then show me the evidence to the contrary. Its very much like this:
Let's say you had a friend living in your house. Every night he went out to rob and kill people, and you knew full well that this is what he was up to, but did nothing. Then let's say the police showed up and asked you to turn him over and you refused. You should expect that the police would come after you.

I am sorry to have been away and so missed all the (sorry) responses to my blog. Apart from RH Morgan (I don't use heroin, never have, never will; so be quiet), only PH himself deserves a reply.

You're right, Peter, I cannot refute (like I can a mathematical conjecture or scientific theory) but I can rebut. Two rebuttals will have to do. First, you say (elsewhere) that Al Quaeda doesn't exist; that's what I call "vague evidence-free supposition". Far more likely, isn't it, surely, that state-sponsored terrorism has been neutralised when that failed state is removed.

Second, the US did some nasty things to us in the thirties and fifties - so what? The US gets attacked by terrorists in 2001 and were supposed to shrug our shoulders a say "tough, remember Suez". Not credible. We are more tightly bound to the US than you imagine, or Eden or Baldwin imagined, and all other prime ministers since have known instinctively. I don't find that objectionable, I think it's a good thing.

Yes, it is galling to me that patriotic conservatives (and I count myself one) won't stand up and be counted over Iraq and Afghanistan. I accept that this one fact might be the reason that I criticise PH's stance so much. But patriotic conservatives have to avoid becoming little Englanders when what Britain stands for most is liberty under law, here and abroad. Furthermore, in the horror of the social welfare state we live in, one of the last things to go will be the will of ordinary folk to stand up and fight for country but it is slipping away all the same. The effect of the war(s) is to throw this into clear relief.

Oh and by the way, I do argue "for the immediate relaxation of the 'wartime' restrictions on normal life, especially at airports" as well as the removal of the threats to our civil liberties by this government. Free individuals have to expect to bear the risks of danger from those who would thwart their liberty as they go about their daily business. Equally, they have the right to raise armies to go abroad to neutralise those who would do them harm. These principles, Peter, are the same ones you use elsewhere in your other arguments.

Peter has swiftly dealt with the bizarre comments of Mr Doyle, who seems to have written his comments whilst under the influence of Afghanistan’s main commodity export. One point however that should be emphasised in quashing this kind of ridiculous belief that we are doing battle against those who have/would do us harm on our streets. The terrorists who killed on 7/7 were from Yorkshire not the Bora Bora and consequently if you follow the logic of the US/UK governments (or Mr Doyle) we should be sending our troops into Bradford or Leicester. It is interesting in the twisted logic of our government that it is entirely happy to send troops abroad to kill Muslim fundamentalists but has sat and watched our own preachers of hate and did nothing. It matters not one jot whether we kill Taliban Afghans or not, it will not protect us from the vast number of fundamentalists living in our own communities. There is no such thing as a war on terror. You can kill all the terrorists you like but what matters is that you hold firm to your belief that they will never achieve what they are after.

I apologise, I did not mean to imply that the majority of Pakistanis were Islamic fundamentalists or terrorists. There is, however, a substantial minority of such people, much increased since the invasion of Afghanistan, who have been "kept under control" by the Pakistani government. If the US were to invade, I'm not sure that they could be resisted any more and a civil war might be the outcome.

In the event of such an invasion, the Pakistani government might consider its only option was a nuclear attack to repel the invaders since it would obviously be at a serious disadvantage in a conventional war. How the US might react to that, I could not say but I suspect they would counter-attack. Then India and China would probably be drawn into the conflict and, after that, who knows?

I have never approved of invading Afghanistan. Its terrible to see the casualties since. It worries me deeply that B. Obama if elected wants to pursue the war on terror in Afghanistan. Troubling consequences if that is the route ahead for the White House.

Hello Andrew - that has answered my question ( Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 24 October 2008 at 08:56 AM) - I can see that if you have relocated to Japan, you have indeed stolen a march on the rest of us. Well done, Sir!

Let me give you a heads up. When you no longer identify with any country, either as passport holder or host nation, feelings of guilt and culpability drop away dramatically. Clearly the world's going to Hell in a handcart, so it's a case of getting your head down and thinking short term. But assuming you can get into character as English gentleman, you could do worse than check out Japan. However, the way the yen is appreciating, you’ll need to either be wealthy or consider paid employment.

It's hard to imagine a more ill thought out idea than the invasion of Iraq. Saddam may have been a brutal despot but he was the key to stability in the middle east. The problem lay with the western governments unwillingness to make a deal with him with regard to the lifting of sanctions in exchange for not waging war on his own people. He could have been a "repentant sinner " and the most valuable friend that the west could wish for in that region. Who knows, the war in Afghanistan may need never have happened. With Saddam acting as an ally to the west against the threat of terrorism the world would be a different place. All it would have taken was a bit of meaningful dialogue
As to the consequences of an immediate withdrawal , the combined populations of Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth the life of a single British serviceman, so apart from a little bit of embarrassment for the architects of this misguided venture ( Blair & Bush ) I don't see a problem.

Michael Williamson said,
"Pakistan is a hotbead of Islamic fundamentalism, which has, until recently been kept under control"

In saying that it has been "kept under control until recently" makes me think that you believe that there is some history of extremism there.
The truth is that most of Pakistan has not historically been fundamentalist or extremist. The founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was a secularist that intended Pakistan to be a refuge for Muslims but not an Islamic state. The Islamist parties traditionally have never received more than 5-10 % of the vote. I even remember there were some local elections during Musharraf's time (post 9/11) which still reflected that statistic.
I recently saw a panel discussion on CSPAN (which is a TV channel that broadcasts senate hearings) in which a former US diplomat said something like "The Pakistani people are conservative but not extremist".

General Zia Ul-Haq who seized power in 1977 tried to remake democratic Pakistan into a strict Islamic state. Most of the radicals in Pakistan today came out of that time period, but the majority of Pakistan remains moderate. (read "The Struggle for the Soul of Paksitan"-from National Geographic, Sep. 2007)

In this National Geographic article a Pakistani novelist is quoted as saying "Yes there are extremists here, but most of us want nothing to do with violence" The writer, Don Belt, then says "This is true, but like moderates everywhere they have trouble being heard over the racket rising up from the streets."
The madrassas that we hear so much about used to be locally funded and were nothing more than seminaries which allowed poor children to learn to read and write, as well as helping to feed and clothe them. Recently however, they have started to receive funding from outside of Pakistan and now about 60% of them have an extremist agenda.
It is clear that Pakistan has become more violent. I would like to study how exactly this has happened but I have heard several reports that since Al-Qaeda in Iraq has lost credibility there, they are re-locating to the Pakistan/Afghan border. I'm sure that the radical movement has grown from within as well and this is certainly sad to see, but my point is that Pakistan has not been historically fundamentalist.

As for the article above.
I read a good book called "The Taliban". It was written by a Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid, who has written about and studied the area for more than 20 years. It was written before 9/11 and even then he said that some Pakistanis were worried about the "Talibanization of Pakistan" He also gave several examples of how the Taliban was destabalizing the entire region (the absolute rampant smuggling, for example, was depriving Pakistan of much needed tariff revenue). I used to wonder what he thought about the invasion of Afghanistan and I was later able to hear him on the radio. He said that he felt that it was justifiable and that the Taliban would never have been dislodged otherwise. (He did not however, believe the invasion of Iraq to be justified) I agree with him because I view the 9/11 attacks, which killed more than 2000 citizens, as an act of war. It WAS carried out by Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda DID have their base in Afghanistan. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan and they were directly supporting Al-Qaeda. I know there might be those on this blog that live in "conspiracy theory land" but I have heard the conspiracy theories and the rebuttals and I say the rebuttals clearly win. There is audio/visual of Osama Bin Laden which clearly indicates that he knew about the attacks and was pleased with the result. I also heard an interview with the British writer Peter Bergen, who has met Osama Bin Laden and wrote a book about him called "Holy War Inc" He continues to study the issues for a living. He said that since 9/11 there has actually been some debate within Al-Qaeda about whether or not the attack on the twin towers was worth it. He said that there are those within Al-Qaeda, including Bin Laden's son (who has since left his father) that believe the attacks were counter productive because they lost their base of operations and now they have a 900 pound gorilla on their back (meaning the US is after them.) So what this statement says is that (and Julian Gurbac should pay attention) is that 1) their base of operations was in Afghanistan and 2)they knew about the attacks.

The problem is that the invasion of Afghanistan has not exactly worked. Who knows where we would be if the resources that went into the invasion and occupation of Iraq had instead gone to Afghanistan. It is true, as Peter says, that we can't know if it would have worked, but we also don't know that it wouldn't have. But that is really beside the point, because the only important question is what to do now. I am not a military or intelligence expert but it is not difficult to imagine that Afghanistan will revert to the failed state that it was prior to the invasion. But what about Pakistan ? The failure to contain the fighting in Afghanistan has now spilled into Pakistan. A very recent article called "The Talibanization of Pakistan" by Richard Engel, who reports for NBC, gives a first hand account of how the Taliban has taken over some slums of Karachi. Yes, Karachi, not just Peshawar or the tribal areas, but all the way down to Karachi. He says that it is Al-Qaeda and the Taliban's aim, (which by-the-way he says the Pakistani people view as the same) to destabalize Afghanistan and Pakistan so they can expand their base of operations.

Michael Williamson worries about Pakistan responding to an invasion with a nuclear weapon, but I would say there is at least and equal worry that if the Pakistani government collapses the nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda/Taliban.

I was extremely disappointed when Barack Obama said that he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan with or without Paksitan's permission. But I have since gained sympathy for the frustration behind such a remark. I saw another CSPAN panel discussion in which a democratic congresswoman explained the frustrations of the US military and Intelligence. They do not trust the Pakistani ISI because the ISI has been so close to the Taliban over the years. When they have shared intelligence it is often not acted on or not acted on soon enough.

I worry for Pakistan because I am married to a Pakistani and he has family there. I think it will have to be the Pakistani people that fight the cancer that is now growing within their country. The problem is it is such a poor country I don't know if they have the means to do it alone. And the US has ruined its reputation so much that they loathe receiving our help.

I don't know what the solution is but I hope and pray there will be one.

I'm continually saddened at the fact that there are people (like Edward Doyle) who continue to subscribe to the cruel con trick that is the 'War on Terror'.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been an unmitigated disaster. This is not surprising, since nobody knew or knows why we actually went into either country in the first place. Iraq may currently be in a state of relative quiescence, but what will happen when we leave? What form of government will eventually assume power there?

As for Afghanistan, it'll end just like it did in 1842. Perhaps we won't witness the exact bloodbath which plagued the retreat then, but it'll be just as ignominious for those who orchestrated this misadventure. Not that they'll feel any shame though, of course. They'll wheel out buff-Hoon who'll spin it as a success, in that wonderfully inimitable way of his.

Yet Israel has not only interfered in Lebanon's affairs continuously for the last thirty years, but Israel has itself funded, armed and trained the Philangist terrorist militias as their "proxy army" in Lebanon, during the 1980's, in order to foment civil war, and Ariel Sharon notoriously allowed the Israeli-backed Philangist terror gangs into the Sabra/Shatila refugee camps, to massacre undefended Palestinian refugees.

Israel flew weapons to the brutal Iranian regime, during it's war with Iraq, and later, during the Iran/Contra scandal. Israel has also allowed Mossad to train and fund Kurdish terrorist groups in northern Iran, in order to undermine the Iranian government. So it's OK for Israel to do it, but it's not OK for Iran to support its interests in Lebanon?

The US has also supported terrorists, most infamously in Nicaragua, where the vicious "contras", illegally funded with US money, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians, and carried out a campaign of rape, torture, and massacre, throughout the poor, rural communities of Nicaragua.

Why does Peter Hitchens not mention these important facts, when he is attacking the "war on terror"?

This is a much better answer to the likes of contributor "Edward Doyle". There can't be a real "war on terror", Mr Doyle, because the US and Israel, have both supported terrorists throughout their history.

You are right PH. The whole fiasco is a scandalous waste of young lives. The billions spent would be far better used to improve hospitals, schools etc in this country. The troops would be better employed in the defence of Britain.
They could crack a few drunken heads in our town centres on a weekend night too but that's another question.

'I think although Obama may be the best choice for President of the two running, he may make a bigger mistake than his predecessor did if he decides to attack.'

Posted by: Chris Sneesby | 24 October 2008 at 02:02 AM

I do not believe that there has ever been a more concerted effort - at the Media/International (Boris Johnson!)/Political (Colin Powell) every which way level to get a character elected as US President. This goes way beyond the usual built in bias there is in these things.

When someone is so patently being pushed into office by all the powers that be, it means something irreversibly appalling and final is planned for America.

I accept any brickbats I get from Mr. Rob and acknowledge that even The Bear may well be part of the manipulation - but this recent Messianisation (is that a word?) of Obama merely confirms my long ago stated desire that GB pull out of the EU immediately, dump the US like a very hot and extremely poisonous, gangrenous potato and form an alliance with Russia.

If the new Russia is also in reality a put up job of the Global manipulation, I will happily take this back.

Bear in mind that as we are so 'in' with China already (so are helping to enrich and uphold the worst genocidal regime in World History) I am talking Realpolitik here, not what would be the best thing to do if we lived in Paradise.

Hmm - can't really think of any more 'preempts' now, and will probably be slaughtered for saying this anyway.

Edward Doyle says that on this issue I "join with the BBC group think". But so what if I do? The fact that I have arrived at this conclusion by myself, rather than as a joiner's or supporter's package of pre-cooked received opinions, means that I hold this view for my own reasons. he must therefore deal with my own reasons, rather than trying to smear me as something I am plainly not.

I know it's inconvenient for his position that patriotic conservatives opposed to terrorism and in favour of military strength oppose it, but he really shouldn't try to deal with this by pretending that they are not conservatives.

The fact that the BBC sometimes gets things right and espouse, among the garbage, a sensible opinion (so do Rowan Williams, Tony Benn, George Galloway and even David Cameron) doesn't discredit that view automatically.

Mr Doyle continues: "It's possible to refute what you say on any number of levels"

Is it? Then he should please go ahead, on any level that he likes. But there's no sign of refutation, merely blustering attempts at rebuttal, in this post. I do hope he knows what 'refute' actually means.

Mr Dyle again: "but the simplest is that it is always right, and honourable, to go to the aid of an ally when he is attacked."

Mr Doyle will have to explain who was attacked, in or by Afghanistan. The US was attacked on its own territory by Middle Eastern terrorists, mostly citizens of Saudi Arabia, serving the PLO cause (which we continue to recognise diplomatically and broadly support, and so do they).

Also he will have to tell us who this ally is? The ally that dumped us at the Tehran summit, in favour of Stalin? The ally that forced us to break our alliance with Japan and compelled us to reduce our navy so that we couldn't defend our Pacific possessions? The ally that stopped aiding us, even though we were bankrupt, practically the moment the Second World War Was over? The ally that compelled us to dismantle what was left of our empire? The ally that pulled the rug out from under us ( and sent his ships to harass ours) at Suez? This isn't emotional stuff. If I had been a US President I would probably have done exactly the same. I love America and like Americans, and would rather the USA was the world's greatest superpower than, say, China. But it's a foreign country with interests that often conflict with ours, and it certainly hasn't been a specially consistent ally of this country. These things should be examined on their merits, not done out of a misty-eyed false sentimentality, based on historical ignorance.

Mr Doyle goes on "It never occurs to the "get out now brigade" (and other leftists, fifth columnists and fellow travellers) that the war against terror has actually been won."

Well, I must plead guilty to that charge, despite not being a leftist, a fifth columnist (whose? ) or a fellow traveller (with whom? This is obsolete Cold War language. That war is over. He'll be calling me an appeaser next). I had no idea that the 'War on Terror' had been won. When was this announced by those who invented it? Is that why our government, panting with urgent fear over the danger of a terror strike, is still trying to turn this country into a surveillance state?

Mr Doyle again: "If we hadn't gone into Afghanistan the history of the last seven years, and the amount of blood on our streets, might have been very different."

Well, yes, it might have been. Then again, it might not have been. To make a case for the deaths we have suffered (and inflicted) he will have to do better than a vague evidence-free supposition.

Mr Doyle once more:"Because the terrorist outrages on our streets were mercifully few, they discount the chance that they could have happened at all. The reason they didn't happen is because we neutralised the terrorists' bases, and now have them on the run."

Ah, it's the reason, now is it|? Not just a possibility. Facts and logic here, please, rather than assertion. And if that's the case, Mr Doyle will presumably be arguing for the immediate relaxation of the 'wartime' restrictions on normal life, especially at airports. I'd welcome it. But somehow, I think he'll make excuses rather than do that

Well said Mr Milner, very well put indeed - although I am surprised that you could find a country not interlinked into some sort of ghastly web of corruption - as would be the case if you are currently residing in another member state of the EU, for example.

Have any of the withdrawal proponents considered the implications of such action against the long suffer people of Afghanistan. Return of medieval brutality, the oppression of women, no education, perpetual abuse and domestic slavery and torture to young girls. Arbitrary execution and torture at the whim of a Taliban half brain. Please where is your humanity, where are your guts and fortitude. We are in Afghanistan like it or not, do you just want to walk away skulking like a coward when the defenceless are crying out for help. Liberal ninnies are so spineless.

Extending the war into Pakistan would be a massive mistake. Plus China will not want that as it is on good terms with that country. I think although Obama may be the best choice for President of the two running, he may make a bigger mistake than his predecessor did if he decides to attack.

The pending economic and financial meltdown may render decision whether or not to remain in Afghanistan and/or Iraq a no-brainer. The UK simply won't be able to afford to maintain military personnel in these countries. Note that the Prevention of Terrorism Act expressly prohibits contributing funds to a terrorist organisation. Then check the definition of a terrorist organisation. Think you'll find that the US and UK more than qualify. Napalm, depleted uranium munitions, cluster bombs, mass punishments, imprisonment without trial, torture, murder, plus massive environmental and infrastructural damage. Now I'm not recommending you use this justification to withhold tax payment to HMG, although it would make an interesting legal case. But if you do find difficulty living with your conscience; remaining in country that is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, I suggest you "hate it and leave it". As I did, some 35 years ago.

What motives, wisdom or folly may have led to our military involvement and presence in Afghanistan are for wiser heads than mine to know. However, on the subject of public interest in it all contributor Frank Hodson writes:
"Don't forget apathy. The public are most readily duped when they're indifferent to what is at stake."

If the public is apathetic, it seems to me hardly surprising, given what looks like an unquenchable thirst to receive or - much more probable - to propagate news. The news industry even urges its patients to have that commodity routed direct to their mobile phones, though it is difficult to imagine anyone actually taking up an offer of such mind-numbing tedium. There are even channels on television dedicated solely to purveying news.
Is it therefore surprising that the public is not so much apathetic as sick and tired of 24/7, wall-to-wall history-in-the-making, not to mention the inane gestures and patronising "Listen with Mother" voices of some tv presenters?.
The best place, according to an old maxim, to hide a leaf is in a forest. In the vast rain-forests of our news media story libraries who knows what lies and half-truths may lie hidden among all the data?
As for Mr Hodson's suggestion that the public may be "indifferent to what is at stake", has it not every right, sir, to be so? After all the public is in the vast majority of cases utterly dependent on hearsay for any ideas it may be expected to entertain on so distant a conflict and what do we have politicians for anyway, if not to manage such matters for us?
There's not much point in keeping a dog and barking yourself.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.